Archive → December 8th, 2017

Is the Left self-destructing, or is something else going on?

The temptation to revel in the implosion of the extreme political Left is high, and it’s understandable. I could go through a long list of insane offenses by the cultural Marxist cult of the church of “social justice,” but I think this latest example summarizes the problem nicely. In this video,teaching assistant Lindsay Shepard at Wilfred Laurier University in Canada is reprimanded and brow beaten by two professors for daring to commit the heresy of showing her students both sides of the debate over transgenderism and pronoun politics.

The zealotry on display here by these professors is indicative of a deep-rooted cancer within the Left. Shepard was not attempting to troll her class with misinformation or subtly manipulate them with propaganda, she wasn’t seeking to pressure them to support either viewpoint. She was not violating anyone’s private property rights to assail them with her arguments, either. Her only goal was to show people in a public space that there are in fact at least two opposing viewpoints on the issue in question. But in a cult it is unacceptable to acknowledge that there are different ways of thinking from the prevailing doctrine. Other beliefs and evidence must be filtered out completely, otherwise, the devout members of the cult might be faced with uncertainty.

If an ideological system is so fragile that it cannot tolerate the slightest hint of legitimate counter-evidence, then something is very wrong with that system. If that system is incapable of arguing its merits using facts and instead relies on the argument of “How dare you!,” the only things that could possibly keep it alive are threats of force and terror.

Since President Donald Trump took office, he has been consistently strategic in working to dismantle the radical, leftwing legacy of his predecessor.

While the mainstream media has fixated on exaggerated day-to-day mini-controversies, the Trump Administration has methodically eliminated job-killing Obama-era regulations, filled judicial vacancies with solid conservatives at an astonishing pace, and accomplished real breakthroughs in trade relations with China and the Middle East.

Now, the President is going after another Obama-era creation: the dangerously unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Long time readers of this newsletter know that I have opposed the CFPB on constitutional and economic grounds for years. I’ve written about the agency’s mafia-like tactics as well as the threat its behavior poses to the rule of law. I have even testified before Congress about the danger this agency poses.

This CFPB was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and was largely designed by radical Senator Elizabeth Warren when she was an Obama advisor. Since the beginning, it has been used as a political weapon by the far Left as a way to intimidate businesses that the Left opposes ideologically.

The CFPB consistently oversteps its bounds. It is prohibited from regulating car deals, yet it does so anyway. It is prohibited from collecting personal data from consumers, yet it does so at a scale that rivals the NSA’s most controversial data gathering operations.

Further, the CFPB draws its funding from the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses rather than annual appropriations – making it unaccountable to Congress. The writers of Dodd-Frank also specified that the director could only be removed by the president – and only under specific circumstances. This undermines both congressional and executive powers. Essentially, the bureau can do whatever it wants – without fear of losing its funding or its leadership.

The bureau’s creators claim it needed this unique autonomy from Congress and the president so it could operate free of politics. However, it appears what the CFPB really wanted was a shield against conservative politics. The Washington Examiner found that political donations from bureau employees have been overwhelmingly Democratic. Since 2011, 593 CFPB employees have donated a total of $114,859 to Democratic candidates or groups, while only one employee has given to a Republican – $1,000 to Mitt Romney in 2012.

In other words, the CFPB is the perfect example of an out-of-control, wholly unaccountable, politically-motivated bureaucracy. It is one of the deepest bogs in the swamp.

The best possible evidence of this agency’s assumed autonomy is illustrated by the ludicrous fight that has unfolded over the past few days.

Former CFPB Director Richard Cordray announced his resignation the day after Thanksgiving, with eight months left in his term. However, before officially departing Friday, he made his chief of staff, Leandra English, the agency’s deputy director, which under Dodd-Frank, would set her up to become acting director in his stead.

However, President Trump exercised his executive power to fill federal vacancies and appointed OMB Director Mick Mulvaney – a fierce critic of the CFPB – as acting director. English is now making an absurd grab for power by suing the Trump Administration. Despite the CFPB’s general counsel acknowledging Mulvaney is the legal acting director, English claims President Trump doesn’t have the authority to appoint him.

English’s grandstanding only proves the contemptuous, bureaucratic arrogance of the culture surrounding this deeply flawed federal agency. The Left simply believes the law does not apply to them.

Not surprisingly, the national media continues to treat English’s ridiculous claim as legitimate – even after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly on Tuesday denied her request for a restraining order to keep Mulvaney from leading the agency.

“Your worst nightmare, Tom. Using your personal information, I opened credit card accounts that funded a spending spree — thousands of dollars, in your name. Cancun is especially relaxing with you footing the bill.”

“You dirty rat.”

“It gets worse, Tom. With your personal information, I located your online bank accounts and drew out all your cash.”

“My bank accounts are password-protected!”

“Good one, Tom. It took less than a minute to crack your code. Only a fool would use ‘123456,’ the worst password for several years running, according to PCWorld. What a rush it was to gamble your savings away in Vegas!”

“You lousy son of a — ”

“I’d also like to thank you for the big fat tax refund. I filed a return in your name. Your fraudulent refund covered my entire tour of Europe!”

“You won’t get away with this, fraudster.”

“Regrettably, Tom, it is you who won’t get away with what I did. I committed dozens of felonies using your driver’s license, which I forged. Skipping out on hotel bills was one of my favorites. The cops will be calling!”

“I’ll sue to get my good name back!”

“That’s a laugh, Tom. Few people have the time or money to hire expensive lawyers to sue big companies like Equifax. As for me, after I’m done pretending to be you, I’ll disappear.”

“There must be something I can do!”

“It’s a little late, Tom, but you should have done three things: Check your credit reports to learn if your information was breached; freeze your credit files, so that credit agencies require your authorization before creditors may access them; and sign up for a credit-monitoring service.”

“Our government should do more to stop criminals like you!”

“Funny you mention that, Tom. According to MarketWatch, the Trump administration is exploring ways to replace the Social Security number as a primary means of identification.”

“How will that help?”

“Your Social Security number has more than 40 congressionally approved uses. You can’t drive, vote, apply for a job or open a bank account without revealing that number. A lifelong, unchanging identifier like the Social Security number is a godsend to people like me!”

“I really dislike you, fraudster!”

“The Trump administration wants to replace the Social Security number with modern identification technologies. As MarketWatch reports, ‘the new identifier would be a unique number known only to the user that changes periodically and automatically.’”

“You won’t be able to gain access to it?”

“That’s right, Tom. MarketWatch says it could include ‘biometric identification or non-numerical identifiers like birth date, occupation, and other unique facts about an individual.’ Such modern measures will put fraudsters like me out of business.”

“I can’t wait. But right now, I want you to man up and give me two things: your real name and your phone number.”